Reminder: Democrats ran the KKK, started the Civil War, celebrated slavery and fought against

thenationalsentinel.com ^ | July 29, 2019 | J. D. Heyes

[ransomnote]

Full Title: Reminder: Democrats ran the KKK, started the Civil War, celebrated slavery and fought against the Civil Rights Act

(NationalSentinel) For all of its existence, the American Democrat Party has stood for distinctly anti-American principles and values, but thanks to a fully co-opted “mainstream media” that serves as the party’s propaganda division, far too many citizens don’t know that.

For instance, they don’t know that the Democrat Party, only recently, “embraced” minorities, seemed to embrace true “equality,” and began vocalizing support for civil rights – all positions the party vehemently and consciously opposed for more than 200 years.

As noted by Prof. Carol Swain, who teaches political science at Vanderbilt University, the Democrat Party defended slavery, actually started the Civil War, founded the Ku Klux Klan, and battled against every single major civil rights act in our country’s history.

In a video she narrated for PragerU Swain, who is black, begins:

When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind – the Republicans or the Democrats? Most people would probably say the Democrats. But this answer is incorrect. Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative and has a long history of discrimination

Swain’s report is particularly relevant in today’s political environment as the far Left, which is taking over the Democrat Party, seeks to not only hide the party’s history but brand the GOP as the party of racists, bigots, homophobes, and authoritarians – led by POTUS Donald Trump, whose own very public history is one of racial equality and harmony, not of bigotry and hate.

[jeffersondem]

“Gotta love it when a plan comes together.”

“Weaksauce. Try again.”

Gentlemen: I regret if my previous post forced you to ease out by the back door.

That was not my intention.

[jeffersondem]

“A horse was killed. A US Army horse.”

I had always heard it was a mule. Controversial in any event.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/4/110412-fort-sumter-civil-war-nation-150th-anniversary-first-battle/

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on John Brown: "Yeah, he went bankrupt twice."

Once, in 1842, and it had nothing to do with wool.
Brown's second business failure, in 1848, was wool, but the losses were absorbed by Brown's business partner, one Col. Simon Perkins, of Akron Ohio.

DiogenesLamp: "Apparently he figured that being the Antifa lacky for Wealthy interests in the North East was more profitable.

There's no evidence Brown's anti-slavery activities had anything to do with a profit motive.

DiogenesLamp: "His efforts to organize the Massachusetts wool merchants just never went anywhere."

Right.
Two of Brown's "secret six" were relatively wealthy.
Neither had anything to do with wool.

DiogenesLamp "And yes, cotton and wool do directly compete.
The vast majority of people wanted cotton, because it was cooler and less irritating than wool."

"Cooler" is not necessarily desirable in cold Northern winters.
Nor is wool necessarily irritating -- i.e., flannel, long used for "Union suits" (before there were "long johns" there were flannel "Union suits").

Sure, cotton is cheaper than wool, but John Brown's problem was not cotton, it was much cheaper types of wool than he produced.
Brown tried to upgrade his customers and wool producers to a higher (so more expensive) type of wool, and they just weren't buying.
That's what caused his business to fail, not cotton.

DiogenesLamp: "If cotton wasn't available, the usage of wool would have increased dramatically, because back in those days, they didn't have very much to chose from."

No, if cotton wasn't available from Southern US producers, then US & European mills would buy it elsewhere, i.e., Egypt or India.
That's what happened.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Some in the South predicted that, if elected, Lincoln would take up arms to violently overthrow the pro-slavery United States Constitution and to make war on the states.
Maybe he did."

Can you cite some pre-war quotes which predict what you claim here?

[jeffersondem]

“Can you cite some pre-war quotes which predict what you claim here?”

You may have never heard that some Southerners were concerned about candidate Lincoln's fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, but Lincoln himself acknowledged the concerns in the third sentence of his first inaugural address:

“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.”

Later in the address, the President reassured the South that he would enforce the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution.

Despite those apparently good-faith assurances, many people today argue the Great Emancipator actually “ fought to free the slaves.”

[Pelham]

I checked and it turns out that the lone casualty of the Fort Sumter bombardment was a Confederate officer’s horse. I didn’t find a description of how that happened.

A Union soldier was killed afterwards, as the Union troops prepared a 100 gun salute as they lowered the flag.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "A Union soldier was killed afterwards, as the Union troops prepared a 100 gun salute as they lowered the flag."

The total of Union casualties was two killed, four seriously wounded, out of a 68 man force (+9 officers & 8 musicians = 85).
This is roughly the same casualty rate as among US forces in Hawaii on December 7, 1941.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Some in the South predicted that, if elected, Lincoln would take up arms to violently overthrow the pro-slavery United States Constitution and to make war on the states.
Maybe he did."

BJK: "Can you cite some pre-war quotes which predict what you claim here?"

jeffersondem quoting: "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered."

In other words, you have no quotes from Southerners which say what you claimed at first above.
As per usual, your words are just more BS.

jeffersondem: "Later in the address, the President reassured the South that he would enforce the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution."

Which he did, in Union states until, after his death, the 13th Amendment was ratified.

jeffersondem: "Despite those apparently good-faith assurances, many people today argue the Great Emancipator actually 'fought to free the slaves.' "

Which he did, in the Confederacy, beginning long before his 1862 Emancipation Proclamation.

All of which jeffersondem fully understands but just loves, loves pretending he doesn't.

[OIFVeteran]

All these pro-confederates like to make Lincoln out as some dictator. He had the full support of the 37th and 38th congresses that both had republican majorities.

The Senate, a continuing body, was called into special session by President Buchanan, meeting in March 4 to March 28, 1861.[1] The border states and Texas were still represented. Shortly after the Senate session adjourned, Fort Sumter was attacked. The immediate results were to draw four additional states[13] "into the confederacy with their more Southern sisters", and Lincoln called Congress into extraordinary session on July 4, 1861. The Senate confirmed calling forth troops and raising money to suppress rebellion as authorized in the Constitution.

Both Houses then duly met July 4, 1861. Seven states which would send representatives held their state elections for Representative over the months of May to June 1861.[15] Members taking their seats had been elected before the secession crisis, during the formation of the Confederate government, and after Fort Sumter.

Once assembled with a quorum in the House, Congress approved Lincoln's war powers innovations as necessary to preserve the Union.[16] Following the July Federal defeat at First Manassas, the Crittenden Resolution[17] asserted the reason for "the present deplorable civil war." It was meant as an address to the nation, especially to the Border States at a time of U.S. military reverses, when the war support in border state populations was virtually the only thing keeping them in the Union.

Following resignations and expulsions occasioned by the outbreak of the Civil War, five states had some degree of dual representation in the U.S and the C.S. Congresses. Congress accredited Members elected running in these five as Unionist (19), Democratic (6), Constitutional Unionist (1) and Republican (1). All ten Kentucky and all seven Missouri representatives were accepted. The other three states seated four of thirteen representatives from Virginia, three of ten Tennesseans, and two of four from Louisiana.

The Crittenden Resolution declared the civil war "… has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern States…" and it would be carried out for the supremacy of the Constitution and the preservation of the Union, and, that accomplished, "the war ought to cease". Democrats seized on this document, especially its assurances of no conquest or overthrowing domestic institutions (emancipation of slaves).

Congressional policy and military strategy were intertwined. In the first regular March session, Republicans superseded the Crittenden Resolution, removing the prohibition against emancipation of slaves.

In South Carolina, Gen. David Hunter, issued a General Order in early May 1861 freeing all slaves in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. President Lincoln quickly rescinded the order, reserving this "supposed power" to his own discretion if it were indispensable to saving the Union.[20] Later in the same month without directly disobeying Lincoln's prohibition against emancipation, General Benjamin Butler at Fort Monroe Virginia declared slaves escaped into his lines as "contraband of war", that is, forfeit to their rebel owners.[21] On May 24, Congress followed General Butler's lead, and passed the First Confiscation Act in August, freeing slaves used for rebellion.

In Missouri, John C. Frémont, the 1856 Republican nominee for President, exceeded his authority as a General, declaring that all slaves held by rebels within his military district would be freed.[22] Republican majorities in Congress responded on opening day of the December Session. Sen. Lyman Trumbull introduced a bill for confiscation of rebel property and emancipation for their slaves. "Acrimonious debate on confiscation proved a major preoccupation" of Congress.[18] On March 13, 1862, Congress directed the armies of the United States to stop enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. The next month, the Congress abolished slavery in the District of Columbia with compensation for loyal citizens. An additional Confiscation Act in July declared free all slaves held by citizens in rebellion, but it had no practical effect without addressing where the act would take effect, or how ownership was to be proved.

Lincoln's preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was issued September 22, 1862.[23] It became the principal issue before the public in the mid-term elections that year for the 38th Congress. But Republican majorities in both houses held (see 'Congress as a campaign machine' below), and the Republicans actually increased their majority in the Senate.

On January 1, 1863, the war measure by executive proclamation directed the army and the navy to treat all escaped slaves as free when entering Union lines from territory still in rebellion. The measure would take effect when the escaped slave entered Union lines and loyalty of the previous owner was irrelevant.[25] Congress passed enabling legislation to carry out the Proclamation including "Freedman's Bureau" legislation.[26] The practical effect was a massive internal evacuation of Confederate slave labor, and augmenting Union Army teamsters, railroad crews and infantry for the duration of the Civil War.

All of the above was taken from wikipedia. Also if you notice congress passed the confiscation act which then allowed President Lincoln to declare slaves contraband of war and free them.

[rockrr]

All these pro-confederates like to make Lincoln out as some dictator.

With all due respect, who cares what they think? It is a matter of bemused curiosity that brings me back to visit these threads. Call it a character flaw but it amuses me to witness them contorting themselves to tell one whopper after another, and attempt to rearrange the universe such that it might support their delusion.

Sure, there is some small measure of concern that their preposterous revisionism reflects badly upon FreeRepublic or our hosts, but most people smile and shrug off their Peculiar Obsession.

There are adherents to the Lost Cause Mythology, but they are few and far in between. History treats their cause kindly, but does not support them.

[Pelham]

“The real truth is that Confederates were Southern Democrats — as “resistance”, rebellious and America-hating as any Democrats today.”

Marx’s letter to Abraham Lincoln

Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America
Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865

Written by Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864
First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, November 7, 1865;

Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, the Central Council:

Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.

18 Greek Street, Soho.

Ambassador Adams Replies

Legation of the United States
London, 28th January, 1865

Sir:

I am directed to inform you that the address of the Central Council of your Association, which was duly transmitted through this Legation to the President of the United [States], has been received by him.

So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.

The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.

Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Charles Francis Adams

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

[BroJoeK]

Right, and if a well known racist like... David Duke writes a complimentary letter to President Trump, that makes Trump as racist as Duke?

I don't think so.

[Pelham]

Marx’s letter puts your “rebellious and America-hating as any Democrats today” claim in perspective.

[jeffersondem]

“This is roughly the same casualty rate as among US forces in Hawaii on December 7, 1941.”

History records there were zero Union casualties during the Fort Sumter exchange. Some bricks were damaged.

I have a gnawing uneasiness about your ability to produce meaningful percentages when dividing zero.

[jeffersondem]

“All these pro-confederates like to make Lincoln out as some dictator.”

To be fair, not all criticism of Lincoln is southern.

Look north to Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy who during the war wrote that Lincoln was “but the fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism”— a “worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero.”

In 1864, Amos Kendall published a series of letters denouncing Lincoln. “Our federal Union,” he declared, “is in more danger this day from Abraham Lincoln and the unprincipled and fanatical faction to whom he has surrendered himself, soul and body, than from all other causes combined.”

The condemnation of Lincoln was not just in the South or North, but international.

The London Times said the United States, under Lincoln's control, had “entered on that transition stage, so well known to the students of history, through which Republics pass on their way from democracy to tyranny.”

Nor is the frank assessment of Lincoln just historical. In the 1980s, author Dwight G. Anderson in his book wrote that Lincoln became the “very tyrant against whom Washington had warned in his Farewell Address, a tyrant who would preside over the destruction of the Constitution in order to gratify his own ambition.”

So, no, criticism of Lincoln is not just southern.

[OIFVeteran]

Of course all leaders have critics. The point I was trying to make is that he had the full support of the republicans, and many democrats, in Congress. If he had done what many of you lost causers suggest he should and just let the rebelling states go, he would have been impeached, removed from office, and the rebellion would have been crushed by the newly elevated Vice President. The republicans believed that the south was in rebellion and it was the duty of the president to crush it.

[jeffersondem]

“If he had done what many of you lost causers suggest he should and just let the rebelling states go, he would have been impeached, removed from office, and the rebellion would have been crushed by the newly elevated Vice President.”

That is an interesting comment.

James Buchanan was president when southern states began to secede. Buchanan opposed secession but refused to make war on the South. If there was a move afoot in congress to impeach him for inaction, convict and remove him from office by a Senate supermajority, I am unaware of it.

And consider: On November 13, 1860, the Daily Union in Bangor, Maine, defended the South’s right to secede, asserting that a true Union “depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people” of each state. “When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone.” If military force is used, then a state can only be held “as a subject province,” and can never be a “co-equal member of the American Union.”

And consider: Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Daily Tribune, December 17, 1860, “the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed.” If the Southern states wished to depart, “they have a clear right to do so.” And, if tyrannical government justified the Revolution of 1776, “we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Million of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.”

And consider: In April 1861, Greeley wrote that “nine out of ten of the people of the North were opposed” to using force to return South Carolina to the Union.

And consider: General Scott, war hero and Commander of the U.S. Army, said of the “wayward sisters…let them go in peace.”

All of this, of course, was before Lincoln’s Navy became involved in the infuriating Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I mean, the infuriating Fort Sumter Incident.

Your contention that Lincoln would have been impeached and convicted for not going to war is supposition – aspirational supposition. But I would sure like to hear more about it.

[OIFVeteran]

Horace Greeley quickly changed his tune; "After Lincoln's election, there was talk of secession in the South. The Tribune was initially in favor of peaceful separation, with the South becoming a separate nation. According to an editorial on November 9:

If the Cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless ... And whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.

Similar editorials appeared through January 1861, after which Tribune editorials took a hard line on the South, opposing concessions.[69] Williams concludes that "for a brief moment, Horace Greeley had believed that peaceful secession might be a form of freedom preferable to civil war".[70] This brief flirtation with disunion would have consequences for Greeley—it was used against him by his opponents when he ran for president in 1872.

In the days leading up to Lincoln's inauguration, the Tribune headed its editorial columns each day, in large capital letters: "No compromise!/No concession to traitors!/The Constitution as it is!" Greeley attended the inauguration, sitting close to Senator Douglas, as the Tribune hailed the beginning of Lincoln's presidency. When southern forces attacked Fort Sumter, the Tribune regretted the loss of the fort, but applauded the fact that war to subdue the rebels, who formed the Confederate States of America, would now take place. The paper criticized Lincoln for not being quick to use force.

Through the spring and early summer of 1861, Greeley and the Tribune beat the drum for a Union attack. "On to Richmond", a phrase coined by a Tribune stringer, became the watchword of the newspaper as Greeley urged the occupation of the rebel capital of Richmond before the Confederate Congress could meet on July 20. In part because of the public pressure, Lincoln sent the half-trained Union Army into the field at the First Battle of Manassas in mid-July where it was soundly beaten. The defeat threw Greeley into despair, and he may have suffered a nervous breakdown.[

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "History records there were zero Union casualties during the Fort Sumter exchange.
Some bricks were damaged."

History records that two died and four seriously wounded during the surrender on April 13.
Those men would have survived unscathed except for the Confederate shelling.

Of course, it is the nature of Democrats to blame everyone but themselves for the consequences of their actions.

jeffersondem: "I have a gnawing uneasiness about your ability to produce meaningful percentages when dividing zero."

Right, just as Lost Causers typically blame "Ape" Lincoln for all ~700,000 Civil War deaths.
"Zero" percent blame attaches to Jefferson Davis & Co.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "Marx’s letter puts your 'rebellious and America-hating as any Democrats today' claim in perspective."

For sake of discussion I reread your letters from Marx and Ambassador Adams.
I noticed first that Marx's emphasis on "the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes..." sounded like it was written by our own DiogenesLamp -- how can that be, a Lost Causer and Karl Marx seeing the world through the same class-warfare eyeglasses?

I also noticed that Adams' response was total diplomatic boilerplate -- in effect: "the United States seeks peace and good relations with all."

So I've seen nothing there to suggest that Lincoln & Marx were "friends", any more than, oh, say, Trump and David Duke today are "friends".